AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.06 A93. 19 A93.07

A69.00 A67.00

1	ORDER APPOI NTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVJEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHJHITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARA.NCE HEARING

llEARING DATE

29 Apr 2010

FD·2009-00023
SIQNi\L; RAtl0/'IA1E AllE. OISCUSgEO,\)N THE ATIACHEO AIR F

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an
application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH Al'B, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  fORO:PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCllARGE REVJr:w ROA RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JR)) FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD Z076MOOI

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFV2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00023	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDING:	The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided  by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

After a thorough and complete consideration of the information provided by the applicant and contained in the records, the DRB concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrading the discharge.
Although the Board did not condone the applicant's misconduct, the Board found that the characterization was too harsh.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was  within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the  overall  quality  of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge  under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief